Is religion being picked on?

[puppypower]

In terms of proving or not proving God, the scientific method is not designed to address a wide range of phenomena connected to the mind and consciousness. For example, if I had a dream and recorded all the details, these details, even if accurate, true, and done with the best of care, will violate the philosophy of science, since this data can't be proven or reproduced by others. One would have to have faith in my ability to be accurate, which is not allowed.

 

Dreams are a real brain output that everyone has experienced, whether you see use or not. We have the tools to know when someone is dreaming, but the details are not easy to confirm, even though dream detail data is as common as sand; billions of such data points each night. Someone could have a dream, gathering hard data, know the truth, but science cannot go there and will say this is not proven. There is gap between what is real and what is allowed.

 

Hypothetically, if an experience of God was an affect of the mind, such experiences could be based on hard data that is internally generated like a waking dream. But since this data is unique and not reproducible in the lab, science will erroneous assume it did not occur, not because of proof, but because of philosophy. What then happens is such people, who know what they saw or felt, need to find others with similar experiences, who can empathize with unique fact, in the land of science exclusion based on philosophy.

 

The philosophy of science as designed to factor out subjectivity and other internally generated data and perception, so what will remain is external reality. This is where we all can agree. The fact that the founding fathers of science found the need to factor things out, suggests they knew another layer of internal data existed.

It doesn't really matter why an atheist doesn't believe. All that really matters is that s/he doesn't. There are a lot of theists who can't wrap their heads around not believing.

The lack of proof is more agnosticism.

None of those things are evidence, especially the common sense part. Common lack of sense, probably. Intellectual laziness too, probably.

There are quite a few people who insist those things are literally true. ~6000 year-old earth, and all that.They are pretty vocal about it, too, so that's probably why the discussion begins and ends there.

 

When someone is threatened and backed into a corner, you are force to fight from there. If I attacked Darwin's theory of evolution for not including genetics, because I don't wish to learn, I can make you fight from there. Y Atheism does not live and let live, but is on the attack with 1st grade PhDs. No atheist will attempt to start a friendly conversation about the sayings of Solomon. They will attempt to fight you into a corner, and then say you are fixating on nonsense.

[Prometheus]

In terms of proving or not proving God, the scientific method is not designed to address a wide range of phenomena connected to the mind and consciousness. For example, if I had a dream and recorded all the details, these details, even if accurate, true, and done with the best of care, will violate the philosophy of science, since this data can't be proven or reproduced by others. One would have to have faith in my ability to be accurate, which is not allowed.

 

I can only take your word for it about your dreams. I can also only take your word for it that your god exists. Therefore, in making decisions about my life, both are irrelevant at best.

 

I like the analogy though and would like to extend it to say god is naught but a dream some humans have.

[Strange]

However, atheism will irrational lump all as one thing.

 

Nonsense. I am very fond of religious music. I think the King James Bible is a great literary work. There are good moral lessons to be found in the bible (as well as some terrible ones).

 

The problem appears to be that atheists only appear to know religion at the first grade Sunday school level.

 

You need to back that up with data. All the research I have seen (and experience on forums like this) tends to show that, on average, atheists are much more knowledgeable about the texts, history and theology than most religious people.

In terms of proving or not proving God, the scientific method is not designed to address a wide range of phenomena connected to the mind and consciousness. For example, if I had a dream and recorded all the details, these details, even if accurate, true, and done with the best of care, will violate the philosophy of science, since this data can't be proven or reproduced by others. One would have to have faith in my ability to be accurate, which is not allowed.

 

Nonsense. There are many people who study dreams (and other aspects of human life) that depend on first hand testimony.

 

 

Hypothetically, if an experience of God was an affect of the mind, such experiences could be based on hard data that is internally generated like a waking dream. But since this data is unique and not reproducible in the lab, science will erroneous assume it did not occur, not because of proof, but because of philosophy.

 

This is also nonsense. There have been many scientific studies of religious experience (which is obviously a real thing).

 

 

The analogy would be a theist looking at first grade science

 

That appears to be you. You appear to have zero understanding of how science works, what it is able (and willing) to study, or what relevant studies have been done.

 

 

No atheist will attempt to start a friendly conversation about the sayings of Solomon.

 

Again, nonsense.

 

I have many friendly and interesting discussions about peoples religion: online, with work colleagues, with friends who were studying theology at university, and so on.

[Jagella]

 

So that is why you can't produce any evidence to support your notions?

I did post evidence, and it was summarily rejected. Religious fundamentalists often act the same way; they will demand evidence only to brush it aside upon presentation.

 

Jagella

(1) OK I will help you learn by pointing out an important aspect of it.

Thanks for the coaching.

 

Make sure you have evidence on your side.

That's generally a good idea, but often people don't want evidence.

(2)If you don't know something, don't claim it as truth. Otherwise you will lose the argument.

OK. Do you know this statement to be true? If not, then don't say it is true, or you will lose the argument!

(3) Leninism discriminates against other religions.

Leninism is a religion?

(4) get a mirror.

I will break it!

(5)Now, by way of practice at the best way to win arguments, perhaps you should cite some evidence for that claim?

I did post evidence only to have it rejected or ignored.

And, don't forget- you made the claim so the burden of proof is on you.

What claim are you referring to?

If you can't offer good evidence you are going to lose the argument.

I'm not really out to win any argument; I just want to know the truth.

So, sometimes, the only way not to lose an argument is not to start it.

I will give it some thought!

Jagella

[Prometheus]

I did post evidence, and it was summarily rejected. Religious fundamentalists often act the same way; they will demand evidence only to brush it aside upon presentation.

 

 

You provided evidence some religious people seek preferential treatment and will cry 'unfair' when held to the same standards as everyone else.

[Arete]

The problem appears to be that atheists only appear to know religion at the first grade Sunday school level.

 

"Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons are among the highest-scoring groups on a new survey of religious knowledge, outperforming evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants and Catholics on questions about the core teachings, history and leading figures of major world religions." http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/

 

Would you like to re-evaluate your position in light of the evidence?

[swansont]

In terms of proving or not proving God, the scientific method is not designed to address a wide range of phenomena connected to the mind and consciousness. For example, if I had a dream and recorded all the details, these details, even if accurate, true, and done with the best of care, will violate the philosophy of science, since this data can't be proven or reproduced by others. One would have to have faith in my ability to be accurate, which is not allowed.

 

Dreams are a real brain output that everyone has experienced, whether you see use or not. We have the tools to know when someone is dreaming, but the details are not easy to confirm, even though dream detail data is as common as sand; billions of such data points each night. Someone could have a dream, gathering hard data, know the truth, but science cannot go there and will say this is not proven. There is gap between what is real and what is allowed.

 

Hypothetically, if an experience of God was an affect of the mind, such experiences could be based on hard data that is internally generated like a waking dream. But since this data is unique and not reproducible in the lab, science will erroneous assume it did not occur, not because of proof, but because of philosophy. What then happens is such people, who know what they saw or felt, need to find others with similar experiences, who can empathize with unique fact, in the land of science exclusion based on philosophy.

 

The philosophy of science as designed to factor out subjectivity and other internally generated data and perception, so what will remain is external reality. This is where we all can agree. The fact that the founding fathers of science found the need to factor things out, suggests they knew another layer of internal data existed.

You can dream things that are physically impossible. I can dream I'm flying, with no source of power. I can dream of a perpetual motion machine. Dreams are not evidence of much of anything other than the fact that we can dream.

 

When someone is threatened and backed into a corner, you are force to fight from there. If I attacked Darwin's theory of evolution for not including genetics, because I don't wish to learn, I can make you fight from there. Y Atheism does not live and let live, but is on the attack with 1st grade PhDs. No atheist will attempt to start a friendly conversation about the sayings of Solomon. They will attempt to fight you into a corner, and then say you are fixating on nonsense.

Case in point. You have an opportunity to present evidence, and you respond with excuses so that you don't have to engage. It makes it easy to dismiss your objections.

[Jagella]

 

You provided evidence some religious people seek preferential treatment and will cry 'unfair' when held to the same standards as everyone else.

You are denying the evidence. Why ask for something you will refuse to take?

 

Jagella

[John Cuthber]

You are denying the evidence. Why ask for something you will refuse to take?

 

Jagella

At the risk of going round in circles, what evidence did we reject?

We did point out that some stuff put forward as evidence was wrong or simply had no evidentiary value but as far as I can see we have not rejected any actual evidence.

[Strange]

I did post evidence, and it was summarily rejected.

 

It wasn't summarily rejected. The dubious nature of the claims was explored in detail in several posts, with several other references to more information. Your position appears to be getting more bigoted and entrenched as time goes on.

 

And IF your evidence were valid, then so is my counterexample which shows that you are supporting the bullies and attacking the underdogs.

 

 

I did post evidence only to have it rejected or ignored.

 

It was neither rejected or ignored. It was weighed, it was measured and it was found wanting. But rather than consider these objections you prefer to pretend that it was ignored.

You are denying the evidence.

 

You are lying.

[Phi for All]

You are denying the evidence. Why ask for something you will refuse to take?

 

It's not a matter of taking it. Evidence needs to be reviewed, compared in context. You can't refuse to offer support for your statements because you don't think someone will accept your evidence. You just need to present it. With this many people involved, nobody is going to be able to reject it out of hand if it doesn't deserve to be.

[John Cuthber]

(1)I did post evidence, and it was summarily rejected. Religious fundamentalists often act the same way; they will demand evidence only to brush it aside upon presentation.

 

(2) Thanks for the coaching.

 

(3) That's generally a good idea, but often people don't want evidence.

 

(4)OK. Do you know this statement to be true? If not, then don't say it is true, or you will lose the argument!

 

(4)Leninism is a religion?

 

(6)I will break it!

 

(7)I did post evidence only to have it rejected or ignored.

 

(8)What claim are you referring to?

 

(9)I'm not really out to win any argument; I just want to know the truth.

 

(10)I will give it some thought!

 

(1)

As discussed at length, no you have not. You have, for example, put forward a set of 7 things that were said to be evidence of persecution of Christians. However, I showed that none of them was valid (others also showed this too in some cases)

(2) you are welcome, but it's only going to work if you actually follow it.

(3) It doesn't matter what people want- if you seek to win an argument, you need evidence.

(4) Quoting stuff out of context will often make you look a fool. So, if you say "I don't know how widespread discrimination against religious groups is, but it does happen." then you have made it clear that you don't know about the subject.

So, in this case I have fair evidence to claim that you don't understand the subject- the evidence is that you said so.

However, you had previously, at least tacitly said that the statement was true.

When you subsequently accept that you don't know if it's true or not, you have to accept that you lost the argument about the truth of the statement.

And I know that's true from two sources, one of which is the (albeit informal) logic of the situation and the other source is long experience.

(5) There might be an argument that Leninism is a religion, but it doesn't matter. the point is that most atheists are not Lenninists so showing that Lenninists persecute Christians is not the same as saying that atheists persecute Christians.

 

(6) You have shown your refusal to face up to your own biasses and prejudices here. perhaps you should take some time to reconsider the flippant reply and think about how you are acting. Are you really acting in an impartial way here?

(7) When I asked you to post evidence you say you already did- even though it has been pointed out that you are mistaken; what you posted wan't evidence. What will it take to get you to face up to this?

(8) Read the title; there's a tacit claim there and you have repeated it explicitly.

(9) they often amount to the same thing. And you did say "If it's OK with you I will stick around and learn how to win arguments." so it's reasonable to conclude that you do want to win them.

 

(10)

Good, albeit a bit late.

[TJ McCaustland]

But science also includes hypothesis, which are the better ideas without real evidence, but with overwhelming circumstantial evidence.

 

A hypothesis is an educated guess that something is a fact. For instance if I do cook something 1000 times then I could be pretty sure something is fact. But in order for it to become a fact other people have to be able to replicate your experiment and find the same or similar results. For instance I could say that what I need to make a sponge cake is a small list of ingredients. However what if I forgot the necessity for air? What would happen if I mixed a sponge cake in a methane filled space?

You'd have either (a a crappy tasting sponge cake, Or (b a pillar of flame, depending on whether or not you introduced a certain low temperature plasma to it's new friend Either way, my point still stands as you forgot that hypothesis can stay hypothesis until either (a someone disproves it completely, or (b it gets evidence behind it and becomes a theory.

You'd have either (a a crappy tasting sponge cake, Or (b a pillar of flame, depending on whether or not you introduced a certain low temperature plasma to it's new friend Either way, my point still stands as you forgot that hypothesis can stay hypothesis until either (a someone disproves it completely, or (b it gets evidence behind it and becomes a theory.

and you can't really set up a proper experiment to test the validity of religion. It's not really possible because there are so many factors that if you started when you were a new born and worked till you died you still wouldn't come up with even a fraction of a list of all the factors involved in proving/disproving such. It's like it's own whole hypothetical science, it cannot be entirely proven, or disproven, and no proper experiment could ever be set up to disprove/prove it all. You can however prove/disprove some parts.

Edited November 5, 2015 by TJ McCaustland

[overtone]

Most atheists worldwide are religious in some way (Buddhist, Daoist, Animist, etc) . Are they among the "we atheists" who need to learn not to pick on "religion"?

[Jagella]

We did point out that some stuff put forward as evidence was wrong or simply had no evidentiary value but as far as I can see we have not rejected any actual evidence.

You rejected the evidence because it does not support your predispositions.

 

Jagella

 

It was neither rejected or ignored. It was weighed, it was measured and it was found wanting. But rather than consider these objections you prefer to pretend that it was ignored.

What a coincidence: I have weighed and measured everything you have said and found it wanting.

 

Anyway, I hope that discrimination against the religious does not get out of hand.

 

Jagella

[John Cuthber]

You rejected the evidence because it does not support your predispositions.

 

 

Do I have to put this in really big letters or something?

What evidence?

[Strange]

You rejected the evidence because it does not support your predispositions.

 

And you have rejected the analysis of the evidence because it does not support your predispositions.

 

 

Anyway, I hope that discrimination against the religious does not get out of hand.

 

As it appears to be almost non-existent, that is hardly likely.

[overtone]

 

 

Anyway, I hope that discrimination against the religious does not get out of hand.

By whom? The other religious? (That's where it's coming from these days). You are too late - it's open war, in dozens of places. The atheistic religions as well? You wish them Godspeed?

 

The problem a fundie faces when trying to pull off this attempt of yours is that unlike most atheists in the US (who have been around hardcore theisms all their lives) they have no real experience with a different way of thinking they have to pay close attention to. So you guys cannot help but frame everything in the standard fundie presumptions, and this identifies you.

[swansont]

You rejected the evidence because it does not support your predispositions.

 

Your "evidence" was rejected because it was not supported by the facts. Or you are using a definition of persecution that is very different than what the rest of us are using. (hostility/ill-treatment because of the religious belief) Notice this has two parts. It has to have the hostility/ill-treatement, and it has to be motivated by the religious beliefs. If everyone is treated that way, then the treatment is not because of persecution.

 

Persecution is not the lack of special treatment, which covers almost all of those cases.

[Jagella]

Do I have to put this in really big letters or something?

What evidence?

OK, what evidence will you accept that some atheists have harmed the religious? Do you promise to accept that evidence if I come up with it?

 

Jagella

 

Your "evidence" was rejected because it was not supported by the facts.

What facts will you then accept? Please let me know, and I will then try my best to come up with that evidence and present it in this forum. I want your promise that you will honor your word.

 

Jagella

[iNow]

I refer you now once again to my post #22:

 

Have atheists committed crimes? Yes, of course. Only a fool would argue otherwise, but the point you're trying to make is ultimately an irrelevant red herring.

 

You're basically comparing atheists who commit crimes in general against theists who commit them specifically in the name of their religion or belief system. Apples and oranges.

 

The challenge, as I'm sure you understand, is that atheism is not itself a belief system. It is not an ideology or worldview or religion any more than bald is a hair color or not collecting stamps is a hobby. The term atheist is not descriptive of a persons ideology in any way. It tells you nothing other than the person doesn't believe in god or gods. Full stop. End program.

 

Further, one cannot commit a crime in the name of atheism any more than one can commit a crime in the name of non-belief in the tooth fairy or lack of belief in puff the magic dragon. The concept is absurd on its face.

 

You know what we do see, however, and with heartbreaking despair-inducing regularity? Crimes and atrocities committed precisely because of ones religious beliefs, ideology, or the fact that they have differing worldviews from some other religious group or tribe (think Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, ISIS, the crusades, etc.)

<snip>

"There's simply no polite way to tell people they've dedicated their lives to an illusion."

― Daniel C. Dennett

 

...and my follow-up in post #41:

 

So do many people who wear hats, or who choose not to ride bicycles. Still searching for the relevance.

[MonDie]

Have atheists committed crimes? Yes, of course. Only a fool would argue otherwise, but the point you're trying to make is ultimately an irrelevant red herring.

 

You're basically comparing atheists who commit crimes in general against theists who commit them specifically in the name of their religion or belief system. Apples and oranges.

 

The challenge, as I'm sure you understand, is that atheism is not itself a belief system. It is not an ideology or worldview or religion any more than bald is a hair color or not collecting stamps is a hobby. The term atheist is not descriptive of a persons ideology in any way. It tells you nothing other than the person doesn't believe in god or gods. Full stop. End program.

 

Further, one cannot commit a crime in the name of atheism any more than one can commit a crime in the name of non-belief in the tooth fairy or lack of belief in puff the magic dragon. The concept is absurd on its face.

 

You know what we do see, however, and with heartbreaking despair-inducing regularity? Crimes and atrocities committed precisely because of ones religious beliefs, ideology, or the fact that they have differing worldviews from some other religious group or tribe (think Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, ISIS, the crusades, etc.)

 

Unfortunately, the only response I suspect you can offer to this is a No True Scotsman fallacy when defining religion or a strawman fallacy when defining atheism, neither of which are terribly helpful or convincing.

 

"There's simply no polite way to tell people they've dedicated their lives to an illusion."

― Daniel C. Dennett

Whether or not an atheist's crime is atheistically motivated, religion might have inhibited it. Religious youth exhibit fewer delinquent behaviors. Perhaps religion inhibits as many crimes as it induces.

[swansont]

What facts will you then accept? Please let me know, and I will then try my best to come up with that evidence and present it in this forum. I want your promise that you will honor your word.

 

Jagella

 

You make it sound like have rejected facts; I have not. I accept all of the facts presented that were true, and rejected items that were not factual. (if it's false, it's not a fact) These facts simply do not support your claim. Partly because of the falsehoods peppered in the claims, and partly because it does not fit the definition of persecution, as I described above.

 

 

You need to provide facts that do support the claim, and situations that fit the definition.

[Strange]

OK, what evidence will you accept that some atheists have harmed the religious?

 

If you don't understand what makes credible evidence, you need to learn that first, before trying to argue a (very dubious) case.

 

You need something more objective than one side saying "we are being treated unfairly". You also need to show the context. Yes, you might be able to find N cases where atheists have attacked religious people but, as my favourite radio show likes to ask, "is that a large number". You need to compare it with the number of similar attacks against that religious group by non-atheists (e.g. by different religious groups, or by members of the same religious group). That is the only way of determining if the number (whether it is 5 or 5,000) is significant.

 

Perhaps you need to look at something where the nature of the attack is not in doubt. For example, you could compare the number of atheist bloggers killed in Pakistan with the proportion of Islamic bloggers murdered because of their writing.

 

Or you could look at numbers from an independent body. For example, convictions of atheists for hate crimes against a religion, compared with the number of convictions of people of one faith for hate crimes against another.

[Jagella]

 

You make it sound like have rejected facts; I have not. I accept all of the facts presented that were true, and rejected items that were not factual. (if it's false, it's not a fact) These facts simply do not support your claim. Partly because of the falsehoods peppered in the claims, and partly because it does not fit the definition of persecution, as I described above.

 

How do you know what is factual and what is not factual?

 

You need to provide facts that do support the claim, and situations that fit the definition.

 

 

What claim in particular are you asking for supporting evidence? In what ways might the evidence support that claim, and what definition are you referring to?

 

And again, will you accept that evidence if I present it?

 

Jagella